memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:I’m making a formal complaint against the user Archduk3
When I started a new discussion on Talk:Worf , Archduk3 moved it to the middle of the page, where no one will ever see it. I don’t know if he was deliberately trying to sabotage the discussion or if he mistakenly believed that it was a rehash of a previous discussion. Archduk3 also posted links to policy articles that were completely irrelevant to the discussion. When I attempted to move the discussion back to the bottom of the page and cited precedents from other pages to explain what I was talking about, Archduk3 blocked me without warning or reply and again moved the discussion back to the middle of the page. Archduk3 cited MA:POINT as justification for the block. I’ve read through that page and nothing on it applies to any of my actions. It is a gross abuse of power for an admin to sabotage an ongoing discussion just because he disagrees with it. I request that there be some disciplinary action to prevent this disruptive activity from continuing. The discussion can be found under the heading “Worf’s full name should be in bold”--NetSpiker :First, evading your block by editing while logged out doesn't help. I believe you still had access to your own talk page so you should have posted there. I must say that you from where I stand you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. No one is trying to sabotage anything, someone is trying to keep things organized. The issue you speak of does ultimately go to Worf's name and it is not unreasonable that those discussions be grouped together. That talk page has now been archived so your discussion is further up the page. I would just let the matter go and concentrate on the issue you are bringing up. 31dot (talk) 11:05, January 29, 2017 (UTC) I'm glad that my discussion is now a lot closer to the bottom of the page where people can see it. I withdraw my complaint. I wasn't aware that I still had access to my talk page. The message that I got after I had been blocked said I should discuss it publically if I felt the blocking was unjust, so that's what I've done. --NetSpiker ::Personally, I do agree that Archduk3 is often too quick to block users. I therefore suggest that he lose his admin status. --Defiant (talk) 11:56, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :NetSpiker, please stop editing outside your user talk page while you are blocked. Your block was only for a day so please wait until then to comment further here, if needed. :Defiant, if you really want to pursue that, please start your own discussion, as NetSpiker has withdrawn his complaint here. 31dot (talk) 12:25, January 29, 2017 (UTC) ::Okay. Thanks for your advice. --Defiant (talk) 12:33, January 29, 2017 (UTC) Nomination for Removal of Adminship: Archduk3 I am asking for Archduk3's admin status to be removed due to his continuing disruptive behavior. This incident began in January and I made a complaint against him, which you can read here: :above After I made that complaint, Archduk3 moved the discussion closer to the bottom of the page, which I interpreted as a conciliatory gesture, so I forgave him and withdrew the complaint, an action that I now regret. Archduk3 didn't reply to my last post (where I made a list of precedents to prove my point), so I assumed he agreed with me and the issue was resolved. Yesterday, I announced that I would be making the proposed changes if there were no further objections. Archduk3 responded by threatening to block me again without any explanation. When I asked him to explain he told me that I was "too dense" to see the points he and plenty of others have made. This is false because I, Archduk3 and LauraCC were the only participants in the discussion so there was no "plenty of others". The only point that Archduk3 made was that highlighted text should be the same as the page title, and I have already shown many precedents where that is not the case. Admins should not be blocking editors just because they disagree with them and admins definitely should not be insulting other editors. For these reasons, I ask that Archduk3's admin status be removed. --NetSpiker (talk) 06:26, March 10, 2017 (UTC) :As one can see from above, the only real insult here is the interpretation that once again I abused my powers by doing what an admin is suppose to do. While administrators should, in most instances, be regarded as any other long time user, there are some instances where they very clearly are not just a regular user, because they actually have to enforce policy and procedure. In the case of the first instance with this user, I had the option of protecting a talk page, something that should never really happen, or block one user refusing to get the point for a day so I had time to deal with the problem. I overlooked that user circumventing their block because another admin had stepped in by that time, and upping it to three days wouldn't really have mattered all that much by that point. What is happening here is just another example of this user refusing to get the point, which as you can see above, is ignoring two admins telling them that their crusade to change Worf's highlighted name is tantamount, or at least similar, to changing the title of the page. They continue to ignore that simple fact, to say nothing of the other points, either through incompetence or design. That's not an insult, that's an observation, and it doesn't really matter why in the end, because the result is the same. I wasn't even able to finish writing this before I had to block this user for reverting my moving this here, since it's clearly a continuation of the above discussion, which apparently was a problem for them. If the community, other than Defiant who is going to automatically agree that I should be removed, think I was out of line for this, I welcome their input. - 07:56, March 10, 2017 (UTC) ::I must concur with Sulfur's comments at Talk:Worf. It was not appropriate for Archduk to block NetSpiker(then or now). That said, NetSpiker is not totally in the right here either. Instead of all this drama can we actually discuss the issue in dispute? 31dot (talk) 14:55, March 10, 2017 (UTC) :::Just read this comment by Archduk: "Defiant ... is going to automatically agree that I should be removed." Wow! How very judgemental! Where was the notion of assuming good faith, then?! I have consistently intended and still intend not to support either argument in this debate. Suffice it to say that that comment should never have been made. --Defiant (talk) 17:59, March 10, 2017 (UTC) ::I take you at your word, but just above this discussion you state "I therefore suggest that he lose his admin status"("he" being Archduk). 31dot (talk) 18:15, March 10, 2017 (UTC) :::Exactly; that was a different discussion. Secondly, you then replied, "If you really want to pursue that, please start your own discussion." I would have thought the fact I chose not to go down that avenue would have additionally communicated my disinterest in doing so! --Defiant (talk) 20:26, March 10, 2017 (UTC) ::I understand- but that was roughly 6 weeks ago; perhaps you were still considering it. As I said, though, I take you at your word. 31dot (talk) 22:30, March 10, 2017 (UTC) :::Okay. I'd appreciate if I'm completely left out of this conversation from now on, please. --Defiant (talk) 22:49, March 10, 2017 (UTC) I'm happy to continue discussing the issue in dispute, now that Sulfur has unblocked me and put the discussion back on track. But I don't think Archduk3 should be allowed to escape disciplinary action. He has shown that he can't tell the difference between abusive behavior and doing what an admin is supposed to do. If he doesn't face any consequences, this behavior is likely to continue in the future. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:26, March 11, 2017 (UTC) :While I respect the other admins choice to unblock this user, I vehemently disagree with their rational. I blocked this user for violations of the policies & guidelines, not disagreeing with me, specifically gaming the system points 4, 6, 7, & 8, refusing to get the point, along with edit warring on a talk page, and assuming bad faith, the last two apparently being born out of gross ignorance of how wikis work and/or trolling. That said, the lack of respect and humility this user has did factor in, I'm only Human. I will continue to block any users who do this though, including this one. If the community wants to waste its time "discussing" something with a person who flat out refuses to acknowledge dissenting points and opinions, is pushing a false consensus and interpretation which has no solid "canon" support and is specifically opposed to policy, not to mention wasting time dragging up examples which don't apply, though I'm now pretty sure this user is ignorant as to why they don't apply, that's the community's prerogative, but I'm done feeding this one. If actually enforcing policy, specifically that the "son/daughter of X" part is considered to be a "family title" for Klingons, is suddenly not what an admin is suppose to do, regardless of how unpopular it might be, then by all means you should remove my sysop powers. If you're going to actually consider that for this though, I'm going to have to insist that discussion happen here. - 21:05, March 11, 2017 (UTC) 4. I haven't been mischaracterizing anything. You have insulted me multiple times and are continuing to do so. I may not know much about how wikis work, but I know you're not supposed to insult people. 6. I have not been going against the community's interpretation of policy. I have cited multiple examples to show that my proposal is consistent with policy. If you think these examples don't apply, feel free to explain why they don't apply. 7. I have not claimed that I have consensus to do anything yet. 8. This is something you are guilty of. When I first started the discussion, you tried to transplant it to the middle of the page, so that no one will see it. You also changed the title to Worf's full name (again) to make people think it was a rehash of a previous discussion, which it isn't. My proposed change is not opposed to policy, despite your claim that titles and highlighted text should be the same, which I have repeatedly discredited. I have also responded to Sulfur's and Renegade's comments so you can't say that I refuse to acknowledge other people's opinions. I would also like to point out that I'm perfectly happy to lose a debate, as long as I am treated with respect. You can see that here. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:37, March 12, 2017 (UTC)